- #36
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 26
So what are you guys trying to say? That diffraction spikes are an indicator of near distance, and so they can be used for scientific measurements and calculations? Did you people skip junior high school, or something? A diffraction spike occurs when rays of light are broken up into dark and light bands or into the colors of the spectrum and it is caused by the interference of one part of a beam with another. It has nothing to do with distance, it has to do with perspective.
So what are you trying to say? That there really are huge light-emitting spikes out there in the universe, occurring only where there is a particularly intense region of light, and they all just happen to orient themselves so they're always parallel to the frame of the picture? And although they happen to look just like the distortion observed of the filming of bright lights here on earth, the ones we see in the sky cannot possibly be the same thing?
We hear ad nauseum how "Black Holes" can scrunch a billion star down to the size of a basketball at some imaginary site so far away that we know we'll never get there to be able to get sucked into one.
I've never heard that before. Even a black hole with a rather meager mass equal to that of our sun still has an event horizon with a radius of 2.95 kilometers. The radius of the event horizon for a billion solar mass black hole would be almost three light-hours.
I.E. slightly larger than a basketball.
This is somewhat irrelevant to the main point, but it demonstrates something we've been trying to tell you; you don't know black hole theory. Because your understanding is littered with misconceptions such as this one, how can you possibly think you know enough about it to know it's wrong?
There is no logic to the "Black Hole" theory and that is evidenced by the people who espouse it claiming that the laws of physics break down when you get sucked past the "event horizon" of a "Black Hole" and reach a spot where even light cannot escape.
When one says "the laws of physics break down", they mean that the conditions required for the accuracy of a physical theory no longer hold. General Relativity's validity requires that quantum "weirdity" be insignificantly small, but GR's predicts that conditions near the center of a black hole are those which would give rise to large amounts of quantum effects. Thus, deep inside the black hole, General Relativity is no longer applicable.
However, the predicted conditions near an event horizon are well-behaved (at least for stellar mass black-holes), giving no reason to doubt GR.
So before you try to defend the cartoon theory of "Black Holes" further
I won't try to defend the cartoon theory of "Black Holes" at all. I defend the real thing.
That indicates that large system construction in the universe is repetitive and proves that randomness is not a feature of spatial construction.
Gasp! Amongst all the trillions of stars in the universe, you found two triangles of the same color!
There's a glaring gap in your reasoning, though. If your green triangles are supposed to be great attractors, then why are we being attracted towards only one of the triangles, rather than to both (and thus towards the region between them)?